10 September 2005

Don't tell Darlene about this

Yeah, I know the week's art-theme is supposed to be postcards, and comic books are so last week. But I had a couple of really sweet comic-book covers left over, and I decided to go ahead and use one of them. It's Saturday and no one reads the blog on weekends anyway.

Darlene loves postcards and hates comic books. (Did I ever mention that she was a home-school mom once?) Her sense of humor is not the type that appreciates comic-book parodies. When she sees me doubled over in laughter at something, she pretty much automatically shifts into schoolmarm mode. I love that about her.

Well, naturally, she breathed a great sigh of relief when I said I was going to use postcards as the art-theme this week. Eventually, I'm going to have to make up for the sin of sneaking in this extra comic-book coverand that probably means I'll have to devote a whole extra week to postcards.

But then Darlene doesn't read the blog on weekends, either, so maybe I can sneak this one tiny comic book past her.

In the meantime, let's do a little

Why is it that whenever Paul Owentries to "clarify" something, the truth gets really muddled? Dr. Owen explains why he thinks Mormons might be authentic Christians even though he wouldn't try to argue that the Mormon church is truly Christian; why Joseph Smith is a prophet even though he's not really; why he doesn't think the Jesus of Mormonism is "a different Jesus" even though it's clearly not the Jesus of Scriptureand much more. His post is apparently a reaction to this week's discussion at PyroManiac, though aside from a single reference to an otherwise unidentified "Mr. Johnson," Dr. Owen doesn't expressly say so, and he purports to be replying to "comments which are circulating on the internet by some Baptists." His post is a real eye-opener if you have been struggling to understand the true agenda of the "Reformed Catholicism" ("Communio Sanctorum") posse.

Doug Wilsonnotices the giant hairball called "Little Geneva" in the appalling category of my blogroll and does some out-loud thinking about why the peculiar brand of racism touted by Harry Seabrook (AKA "Kunta Kinist") is so sick and twisted. Speaking of "Little Geneva" and Harry Seabrook's "skinism" (credit goes to Doug Wilson, I think, for coining that term)people occasionally ask why I include a link to that blog at all, since I find it so appalling. The answer is that Harry and a few of his pals have inexplicably managed to garner a following that includes several people who link to my websites. If any of the Kinist homeboys wander in here, I want it known that I consider their view on life and culture repulsive. Infrequently, but with disturbing regularity, some otherwise rational person will write to ask me, What's so wrong with Harry Seabrook's opinions about race? After all, he denies that he's a racist or a white supremacist; he says he's a "kinist." Why do you find him so appalling? (After all, in this age of postmodernism, it's not polite to tag people with labels they don't apply to themselves. Ergo, Harry's not really a racist.) My short answer: Because he is the worst kind of racist: someone who continually, deliberately, and openly defies the Second Great Commandment in his public dealings with neighbors of different races and cultures. And he glories in it. Now, before the postmodern thought-police suggest there's a moral equivalence between that sort of thing and every expression of public disagreement, allow me to remind you we're not talking about someone who is critical of others' ideas and attitudes. We're talking about someone who regularly seethes with sneering contempt for others solely on the basis of their race. He is clearly obsessed with the issue. And since he claims to be a Christian, it is the duty of other Christians to confront and expose the inconsistency of Harry's worldview with the plain teaching of Scripture. See also 1 John 3:14-15.

Jus Divinumeloquently laments the illiteracy that has spoiled humor. Unfortunately, Jus, the same limitation keeps the pomos from following logic, so your argument, though irrefutable, is likely to go over the heads of those who most need to heed your admonition. Logic is now nearly as politically incorrect as satire, you know.

14 comments:

Re: Paul Owen's blogpost about his so-called "Clarifications on Mormonism." I checked his other posts, and if I understand correctly, it appears he normally accepts comments. But on the "Clarifications on Mormonism" post, I couldn't help but notice at the bottom he inserted "Comments Closed."

I am looking forward to that lunch when I am in town again! I really wanted to get together with you when I was in town in July, but time was not on my side during that week. I was in your area for 2 days...

It's seems Mr. Owens needs to "examine" himself (that's all I can say about the matter).

On another note, I have a friend who is attending the Biblical Counseling program at the Master's College (and attends GCC). I will be coming out to visit her and hope to be able to stay over the weekend to attend a service at GCC (and possibly meet both Phil and Pastor Macarthur to say thank you, thank you, and THANK YOU for defending God's Word and preaching it just as it is written).

FYI Phil - our Pastor, Dr. Jerry Mitchell, whom I'm almost certain you know personally, preached a fantastic sermon on the state of the American evangelical church and the message of the "old rugged cross", today. Assuming you know him and know where he is Senior Pastor then you probably also know where you can find his sermons online. It's usually a 1-2 week delay, like most of Johnny Mac's, I'm sure.

Although, the timing of his sermon might not be just coincidental, either.

What ? Nobody left comments on the astute summary of the racist theonomist pseudoalelphoi Seaborn so eloquently made by Mr. Johnson ?

Guess it had to be the black guy to bring it up. :) Good job Phil. GREAT job. And I'm not just saying that because I'm black. I'm saying it because I'm your brother. :)

Folk like Seaborn: "....who have all of his theology in order, yet believes in racial segregation does not have all of his theology in order. His heart is not right before God. Nothing is more oxymoronic (emphasis on moronic) than a person who claims to be a believer who demonstrates his hatred toward those who claim Christ but don't have the same skin color as him. Such a man is a LIAR and the truth is not in him or those who follow his example."

I am a white calvinist, Blackcalvinist, and couldn't agree more with you. We are all brought together in Christ and those who argue that the sin-caused racial and cultural divisions that still exist are really God's perfect plan are full of it. They are doing what all theological liberals do-- philisophically accomodating their sin.Dress it up how you want, but at the end of the day it is still just plain-vanilla rebellion against God.

Phil wrote: "And since he [Harry Seabrook] claims to be a Christian, it is the duty of other Christians to confront and expose the inconsistency of Harry's worldview with the plain teaching of Scripture."

I think that those who exhort others to take actions which they call duties ought to lead by example. If you claim to be a Christian then it is your responsibility to "confront and expose the inconsistency of Harry's worldview with the plain teaching of Scripture," rather than with the plain smear tactic of name-calling.

Look at your own words, Phil. All you did was denigrate the man by calling him a "giant hairball" who is "appalling" for his "peculiar brand of racism." Then you called him "Kunta Kinist" and said he was "sick and twisted." Of course, there would be nothing wrong with any of the aforementioned comments if you clearly showed Seabrook to be worthy of such contempt. But you haven't done so. You state "he openly defies the Second Great Commandment in his public dealings with neighbors of different races and cultures." And you followed this remark with a reference to 1 John 3:14-15. But you never explained how he openly defies the Second Great Commandment, nor did you comment on what it is in 1 John 3:14-15 that you believe condemns Harry Seabrook as an evildoer. Maybe you will respond to this by proving your case but you haven't done so at this point. It is necessary for you to clearly demonstrate the evil in what you are calling evil before you require others to do so. If you cannot, then you yourself are condemned by 1 John 3:14-15 for spewing out hatred against a fellow Christian without a cause.

I deleted several comments on both sides of the "Harry Seabrook/Badonicus" debate, because there are better forums for a discussion of that question than the comments section of a two-week old blogpost on PyroManiac. I'm no more interested in hosting a debate about "kinism" than I would be in hosting a similar debate about NAMBLA.

For the record, I have done more than denigrate "Little Geneva" (the site, not Harry) as "a giant hairball." Readers are welcome to review all my comments about LG and the links I have cited in support of my contempt for their beliefs, both here and in earlier references to Seabrook's site on my blog. A site search for "Harry" will produce everything I have said about the fellow, as well as my comments on the "Harry Potter" debate.

Anyway, I'll probably revisit the issue eventually, and then I'll open the comments for a full debate (as long as participants stay within the parameters of basic civility and clean language). For now, future posts on the subject here will be routinely deleted. So don't even waste your time.